Join the Riot for Austerity!

Where I'm Going to Be Next

For a host of reasons, I do try to limit my travel. But I also do give talks, and I do do interviews, and this corner of the blog will tell you what's upcoming. If you'd like me to come speak, send me an email at jewishfarmer@gmail.com, and we'll see if we can work things out.

My Next Talk:

On February 16 at 3pm, I'm giving a FREE talk on the basics of food storage - why and how - at my friend Joy's store, The Olde Corner Store 133 Factory, Gallupville NY 12073. 518-872-1610. All are welcome, and Joy will be offering a discount to anyone who wants to get started in storing bulk foods.

About the Books

In case you wondered, there are two of them.

Coming out in the fall of this year, _Depletion and Abundance: Life on the New Home Front_ focuses on how families can adapt to a lower energy, hotter world - and help hold back the worst of the disaster as well.

Coming in Spring '09, _A Nation of Farmers_ co-authored with Aaron Newton explores our current agricultural situation, makes a case for a sustainable future, and draws the connections between our agriculture and our lost democracy.

Both forthcoming from New Society Publishers.

About Me

I'm a 35 year old writer and subsistence farmer, author of two forthcoming books on Peak Oil and Climate Change _Depletion and Abundance: Life on the New Home Front_ (Fall '08) and _A Nation of Farmers (And Cooks)_ (Spring '09) the latter co-authored with Aaron Newton. Both books are forthcoming from New Society Publishers.
I used to run a small, Jewish themed CSA, but now we're concentrating on subsistence agriculture, growing food and teaching others to grow food.
My training was in literature, focusing on the Renaissance and demographic and cultural crises of the 17th century. I've switched to focusing on the demographic and cultural crises of the 21st century for the moment, but retain an interest in all things literary.
In my spare time (of which there isn't much), my husband Eric and I are raising Eli (7 1/2), Simon (6), Isaiah (4) and Asher (2), and assorted critters and livestock, building an agrarian future.

Monday, February 26, 2007

The Silliest Possible Way to Save the Earth

So by now you probably know that Richard Branson, along with various other climate change luminaries has offered a 25 million dollar prize to anyone who can suck 30% of the greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere. Inventors all over the world are competing for the prize, to be judged by Al Gore and various famous climate scientists.

Perhaps it is just sour grapes that I have no inventing skills, and thus am doomed to poverty and obscurity, but this reminds me of the time our refrigerator broke down. The freezer was icing up heavily, and preventing the vent of cold air into the refrigerator. And the man who came to repair it couldn't figure out what the cause was, so he suggested adding a small electric heater to our freezer, which would prevent the ice from forming and blocking the cold air flow.

We declined this solution, because it was stupid, not to mention wasteful. Instead of fixing the root problem, it manufactured a solution that a. was fraught with potential problems and b. didn't fix the root problem. And the Branford prize seems oddly similar.

Now let's think hard about what kinds of solutions people might come up with to resolve the climate change problem - most of them (I checked all this with DH who is an astrophysicist), pretty much come down to "change the carbon dioxide and methane into something else" or "move the carbon dioxide/methane somewhere else). Now correct me if I'm wrong, but chemical reactions to change something into something else tend to be umm...energy intensive, no? And moving large quantities of diffuse gases around would be...ummm...also energy intensive. And isn't the problem that we're umm...burning a lot of energy?

Now, of course we could come up with a renewable means of powering this enormous energy guzzler, but don't we need to be building those renewables to replace even a small part of our *existing* energy consumption? And in fact, the production of all those renewables is going to spew a not-insignificant amount of carbon into the atmosphere, because those renewable sources are made with ummm...fossil fuels.

Now then there's the problem of what to change the carbon into if we use a chemical reaction. Personally, my husband is partial to graphite, because it is comparatively harmless and can then be used in pencils. The problem would be that it would fall to earth in chunks, which would be tough on people standing underneath. Now I'm sure scientists can come up with something soft, but there are real concerns about changing the carbon to another gas, and changing the basic composition of the atmosphere.

Now one solution to the problem of energy intensiveness would be to create a living solution, something self-perpetuating that "ate" carbon dioxide or methane. But the problem with these ideas is that the potential for unforseen consequences is fairly high. If, for example, a self-perpetuating something or other (this is a technical term) that "ate" carbon dioxide were to be created, what would prevent it from accidentally eating all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, destroying the greenhouse effect, dropping the worldwide average temperature to -10 degrees and freezing the oceans solid. If we are relying on our prior record as human beings for forseeing the unpleasant consequences of our technology to save us, let me just say, "no freakin' way."

Every such solution is bound to be dangerous. Adding particulates to the atmosphere (which wouldn't win the Branson prize but has been proposed quite seriously) to cut down on the sun's penetration further, has a whole host of possible negatives, including increasing asthma, giving the whole planet emphysema or plunging us into an ice age.

And, of course, the biggest danger, and the most likely one, is that it just plain wouldn't work. So of the most likely solutions, one or two or ten are likely to fail before we hit on one, if we ever do - and each one is likely to contribute enormous quantities of greenhouse gases, and take billions of dollars and waste time and money and resources we do not have while we try really hard to fix what we've done.

Now we've known about global warming for decades, and for decades we've declined to use the obvious solution - cut back radically on our consumption of energy, use what energy we can use to create non-polluting, renewable solutions, and change our lives. Now we've managed to drag ourselves to the brink of viewing our own extinction - whether as planet or simply as a whole lot of suffering individuals who are going to die because we wouldn't give up our conveniences and live more reasonably. Technologies are what got us into the problem - there' s no too ways about it. Thus far, we have never created a technology that didn't in the long term, result in using more stuff, more energy. If we make a more efficient doohickey, the money we save goes to consuming other crap. Our energy consumption has grown steadily, despite all sorts of advances in efficient technology.

In the end, the solution to the global warming problem is mostly not going to be found in a lab - it will be found in our own convictions, and the democratic processes we use to convince our leaders that we are prepared to change and sacrifice in order to see another generation, and ten generations, go forward. It isn't that technology will do nothing - there are technologies that will enable us to be a little more comfortable, to keep some of our infrastructure and economy intact - how much is not yet clear. But in the end, what will save us, to the extent we can be saved (we are already committed to a great disaster and a century of crisis), is that we stop looking to high technology and start using what already is here, and what we have - our hands and our feet, our backs and our minds, to substitute for the things we think we need.

I will never win the Branson prize, but here's my entry. If you want to remove 30% of the carbon from the atmosphere, immediately ground the Virgin Atlantic fleet and most airlines, tell Al Gore to get his ass off the jet and stay home in Tennessee (or if he wants, he can run for president from his hybrid bus - whatever). Take the 25 million dollars and all the tax revenue you would have spent sucking methane and use it to pay tropical farmers to preserve the rainforests, rather than grow wheat for cows there. And every person who owns a patch of ground that will grow anything should get their behinds in gear and start turning that patch of earth, every single available cm to garden. Till once, if at all. Use mulch, or seed balls or other low and no till options. Pour every bit of compostable material, including humanure (which fertilized farmer's fields in the US well into the 1900s and could do it more safely now with good composting techniques and central composting stations in crowded areas), food scraps, garden waste, etc... on the ground and raise the levels of organic matter as high as you can. Raising soil humus levels really does remove carbon from the atmosphere. Will it get us to 30%? No, probably not. But it will get us a fair way, and with far lower chance of extinguishing all human life, wasting billions of dollars and burning up the remaining fossil fuels on stupid solutions.

It is time to stop thinking in terms of putting a heater in the refrigerator, and fix the root problem. Duh.

16 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I did see mr. Branson his proposal as a wake-up call of the sleeping establishment that would like to keep everything as Business as Usual.

I did think back to one of my Professors lectures about the greenhouse balance and send in my proposal (I hope to the right address). I call it the 1+1 = 3 solution. By reduction of the CO2 release of our industries and massive reforestation of our deserts (water needed) we can solve this problem in a simple way. The main warning, from one of my others professors was: CO2 is (was) only 0,03 % of the air in our atmosphere. If we increase it to 0,06 % we have doubled this greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

Well yes,of course but...... the requirement that people, the masses, consider lifestyle change, reduction in consumption and a switch from their current headset which involves being able to jet to Europe, Disney or some warm place whenever their seasonal affective disorder sets in is not gonna happen willingly. You, I and some others have all chosen to work at conserving, living thoughtfully, etc, but the masses have not. So- they, and the corporate entities and political hacks who run this country are all continuing to worship at the altar of the techno-fix; whatever will "solve" the problem without requiring us to change our lives in any significant way. Sort of the nonsense that Amory Lovins promotes, and enviro types lap up- hyper-cars and the like, that will allow us to keep on motoring to the mall , just in an eco responsible manner.....yeah right.

It's all mental-masturbatory fantasies as far as I can tell- and Sharon- I think it's mostly guys who are promoting this. In fact- I'd have to say that it's mostly guys who have created our fossil-fuel dependent world of combustion engines and skyscapers- and it is guys who are promoting the garbage that Branson is. And no- a simple idea such as recreating the lost organic matter in our soil- which will help in so many ways- won't cut it with this crowd- no enough of a techno-fix.....

I have been thinking about this stuff a lot recently- have been out X-country skiing and snowshoing this week- finally lots of snow AND milder temps-just gorgeous mountain trails, quiet and fresh air, until the snowmobile herd descends- and then deafening noise and choking fumes- cannot figure out what they don't get- we're out there having good conversation, exercise,and quiet enjoyment of the lovely scenery- and they're on noisy, smelly beasts- but all around me it's what's happening- a whole lot more of them than me- using up fossil fuels and adding more GHG emissions- and they could care less......and it is this culture that Branson and others of his ilk seek desperately to conserve at all costs....

I've gone right off Al Gore. He wrote the introduction to a book called World Changing, which is about how we can fix the world in the 21st cent. One example is to persuade golf course managers to use greener golg polishing machines. THe mind boggles. As if golf were a green sport to begin with.

The whole idea strikes me as one of using the same thinking to get us out of a mess that got us into it.

they will sell your kids, and their own, to hold on to power, all of them

branson announced a $3 billion "gift" last year to fight climate change. know what it was for?

to develop green fuels, so his planes could keep flying. not to keep families alive or intact, not to clean up superfund sites, not to clean up UK pollution. no, to clean up his own future pollution, and only that. not a penny of the $3 billion goes to anything he himself has not caused.

no trust, not one inch

sharon, you're spot on as always, well, mostly, though I heard I guy slumped over a bar last week saying that he had the solution, which unfortunately was secret, and then he ordered another beer.........

and I just knew that same conversation was taking place in a thousand other bars at the same time.

they will sell your kids, and their own, to hold on to power, all of them

branson announced a $3 billion "gift" last year to fight climate change. know what it was for?

to develop green fuels, so his planes could keep flying. not to keep families alive or intact, not to clean up superfund sites, not to clean up UK pollution. no, to clean up his own future pollution, and only that. not a penny of the $3 billion goes to anything he himself has not caused.

no trust, not one inch

sharon, you're spot on as always, well, mostly, though I heard a guy slumped over a bar last week saying that he had the $25 million solution, which unfortunately was secret, and then he ordered another beer.........

and I just knew that same conversation was taking place in a thousand other bars at the same time.

What a great analogy! Heating the refrigerator, indeed. Brilliant post. But I do think the masses will convert; eventually they'll be forced to by necessity, no matter how little they like it. It's just a question of how much--and how many--will be destroyed first.

Don't worry about it - I cross country ski and snowshoe where I live too ;-). In fact, I went out yesterday to do my annual fruit tree pruning, and discovered that having to shovel out the dwarf trees to get to the prunable branches (3 1/2 feet of snow on the ground) is a bit of a pain.

Ah but Sharon, changing one's lifestyle is soooo much work. Why can't we just put in tech and go shopping? It's not like this whole mess is that bad or anything...

Seriously, a lot of the problem is human psychology. The psychology of risk dictates we focus on short-term problems (for the most part) and the psychology of previous investment says stick with what you're doing until it no longer works. Well, roughly. If you want a more in-depth explanation, this semi-trained psychologist will try to produce one.

Do you want to get the most popular sports accessories? Please click our website, we offer many kinds of fashionable Air Jordan Shoes, NFL Jerseys, MBT Shoes, Nike TN and Puma Shoes Men , especially in NFL Jerseys, you will find more than thousand kinds of jerseys in our store. We guarantee the best quality and the best service for every consumer. If you are interest in, please feel free to contact us, we will reply you as soon as possible.